|
|
Introduction
Welcome to the
July edition of Medical Law Brief. Our feature article
this month is written by Kieron West, Partner in our
Occupational Disease Unit. The article discusses the
issue of health authorities being faced with uninsured
asbestos related claims which have not been reserved
for. Kieron has considerable experience in conducting
asbestos related disease claims on behalf of Strategic
Health Authorities.
We also summarise two
recently reported Kennedys' cases, the first where
substantial damages were awarded for missed third degree
tear following delivery. Damages were exceptional
in this case due to the severity of the injury requiring
implantation of electrically stimulated gracilis
neosphincter. The second case of C v Colchester
Hospitals records an out of court settlement agreed
to reflect litigation risks of Claimant succeeding in
establishing his conservative treatment of pancreatitis
led to an additional period of recovery of up to 60
days.
As always, if you have any comments or
feedback about this newsletter or any of the issues
raised, I would be delighted to hear from
you.
Janet Sayers Head of Healthcare
Team | |
| |
| Feature Article |
NHS Asbestos Legacy – SHAs pick up the
tab
 |
In recent years
health authorities have found themselves implicated in
asbestos related disease claims. Most of these
claims have consisted of occupationally induced
malignant mesotheliomas.
Mesothelioma is
an asbestos induced malignant cancer generally found in
the lining of the lungs. The condition is latent
and usually occurs 30 or more years after first exposure
to respirable asbestos fibres. The condition is
incurable and life expectancy generally ranges between 6
- 24 months from first physical symptoms.
|
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral and was
until the late 1960s used extensively as thermal and sound
insulation in all types of buildings, including
hospitals.
Asbestos insulation per
se does not constitute a health hazard but when it is damaged
or becomes friable with age, there is a danger of asbestos
fibres being ingested and becoming lodged in the lung tissue
remaining dormant until mutation of the mesothelial cell many
years later. Different types of asbestos fibre pose a
different level of risk in the causation of a
mesothelioma.
The majority of
mesothelioma claims brought against health authorities have
resulted from occupational or para-occupational
exposure. Such claims have been brought on behalf of
boiler men, general maintenance workers, laundry personnel,
nurses, student nurses or by their dependants.
Asbestos was widely
used in the construction of hospitals. It was by far the
most effective fire retardant material. Boilers, heating
and water pipes were lagged in a matrix of asbestos and
Portland cement. Asbestos cement sheets were used for
internal walls and fire doors.
Due to the
numerous changes in the Health Service since the 1960s, few
records have survived. Frequently, no valid insurance can be
identified covering liability for a mesothelioma claim where
exposure occurred 30 or 40 years ago. Such a claim would
not fall to be dealt with by the NHSLA’s claims handling
service. The old liabilities of Hospital Management
Committees and Area Health Authorities have been inherited by
the Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) who are unlikely to
have reserved for such claims. A typical mesothelioma
claim is worth around £150,000 (exclusive of costs). A
flood of claims can cause a huge dent in an SHA’s budget.
Further, there are
claims against SHAs from other culpable employers who seek to
recover a contribution towards the damages and costs they have
paid to a mesothelioma victim.
Kennedys has extensive
experience and expertise in defending uninsured asbestos
related disease claims, particularly claims against
SHAs. Such claims are dealt with sensitively but firmly.
It is important that the claims are properly scrutinized and
that damages paid from health budgets are only paid where
liability and causation are properly established.
For further
information please contact Kieron West (Head of Kennedys'
Occupational Disease Unit) – Tel: 0845 838 4831, email:
k.west@kennedys-law.com
| |
| Case Law |
Hellaina Monou v Barts and the London NHS Trust
[2008] LTLPI 7.5.10
Claimant
aged 21 years, underwent extended episiotomy during delivery
of her first child at Defendant Trust’s hospital. The
episiotomy wound was sutured by the delivering midwife.
Claimant complained of soreness and bleeding of perineum a few
hours later and on examination a diagnosis of haematoma was
made and ice packs advised. Claimant was discharged the
following day.
Community midwife subsequently made
three home visits.
Approximately three months after
the birth, Claimant attended GP complaining of faecal
incontinence and urgency. Upon examination, it was noted
Claimant had suffered complete loss of perineum and anus was
adjacent to the introitus of the vagina. Claimant underwent
electrically stimulated graciloplasty and reconstruction of
perineum. Subsequent anal manometry revealed Claimant had
significantly reduced resting and squeeze pressures consistent
with injury, as well as unilateral left pudendal
neuropathy.
Claimant alleged negligence in failure to
examine anal sphincter and identify third degree tear and
repair immediately following delivery. Trust admitted breach
of duty for failing to diagnose sphincter injury prior to
discharge.
Claimant suffered incontinence for a period
of 1 year until surgical repair of sphincter. The stimulator
to her neosphincter would require periodic replacement and
there was a significant risk in due course she would require
permanent colostomy. She would require Caesarean section to
deliver future pregnancies. She also suffered from adjustment
disorder and a hypoactive sexual desire disorder.
Out
of court settlement: £235,000 (estimated General Damages:
£55,000).
Neil Davy instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP for
the Claimant. Claire Toogood instructed by Kennedys Law LLP
for the Defendant. |
C v Colchester Hospital University NHS
Foundation Trust [2009] LTLPI 26.5.10
Claimant, aged 57 years, admitted to
Defendant Trust’s hospital with abdominal pains. Diagnosis of
pancreatitis was made and treated conservatively using
intravenous fluid, antibiotics and pain relief. Ultrasound
showed no duct dilation or stones. Subsequent CT scan revealed
severe complicated pancreatitis with necrosis of body and
large mass extending from stomach to anterior and posterior
left pararenal spaces.
One week after being admitted,
an ultrasound guided drain was inserted into pseudo cyst and a
large amount of haemorrhagic fluid drained. Drain remained in
situ and Claimant was discharged with follow up, but no
further antibiotics provided. He was advised to monitor levels
of fluid draining over four to six weeks. Claimant’s condition
deteriorated and one month later was readmitted as an
emergency. Upon examination it was noted pus was discharging
from the drain and he was treated with intravenous
antibiotics. He was transferred to another hospital where
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was
performed. There was complete disruption of the pancreatic
duct. Stent was inserted and CT scan showed retroperitoneal
disease. He subsequently underwent debridement and a feeding
jejunostomy, as well as insertion of two drains into
pancreatic bed. The drains were removed two months
later.
Claimant alleged negligence in delay in
investigating his symptoms further and performing ERCP when he
was originally admitted, which would have shortened the length
of his illness by 30-60 days. Liability disputed. The
Defendant Trust argued initial conservative management was
appropriate.
Out of court settlement: £7,500.
Dr Peter Ellis instructed by McCool Patterson
Hemsi for the Claimant. Kennedys Law LLP for the
Defendant. |
Anthony Moore v Basildon & Thurrock
University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2010] LTLPI
12.5.10
Male Claimant, aged 46 years, was prescribed Linezolid by
Defendant Trust’s hospital for an infected wound. He was
readmitted five days later suffering from severe anaemia,
peripheral oedema and haemoglobin count of 4.2. Claimant
was incorrectly advised he was suffering from leukaemia and
would die within a year, but it was subsequently discovered
that he was actually suffering from peripheral neuropathy
believed to have been caused by prolonged and unmonitored
administration of Linezolid.
Claimant alleged negligence in prescribing Linezolid as he
did not have MRSA, and for failing to monitor blood results
weekly in accordance with BNF guidelines. Liability not
disputed.
Claimant suffered neuropathy in arms and severe neuropathy
in his legs and a common peroneal nerve palsy in left
knee. His gait became abnormal causing him to fall
frequently. He had previously worked as an engineer but
his injury caused restrictions due to difficulties climbing
ladders. Symptoms were likely to be permanent and he was
likely to require further knee surgery with a risk of above
knee amputation. He also suffered psychological injuries
after being advised he only had a year to live.
Out of court settlement: £175,000 (estimated General
Damages: £60,000).
Lucy MacKinnon
instructed by Withy King for the Claimant. Katie Gollop
instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP for the Defendant.
|
E v The Estate of Witold A W Kmiot [2010] LTLPI
24.5.10
Claimant, aged 41
years, underwent surgery in relation to a right inguinal
hernia. Prior to the surgery he enquired whether micro surgery
would be possible as he was a self employed model and actor
and was concerned about the scarring. The Defendant advised
that micro surgery would be a less effective means of treating
the hernia and would make little difference to the size of
scar as compared to open surgery. The only risk referred to on
the consent form was bleeding.
Following the operation
the Claimant had an 11cm scar protruding over his underwear
line and experienced numb genitalia on the right side.
Claimant alleged negligence in failing to refer him to
a surgeon who could have carried out hernia repair by
laparoscopy and failure to obtain valid consent. Liability
disputed.
Prognosis – numbness was expected to resolve
within one year. The scar was permanent and he recovered a
modest sum for loss of opportunity to obtain “body” shoot
work.
Out of court settlement: £15,000 (General
Damages: £11,500).
Adam Korn instructed by Russell-Cooke LLP for
the Claimant. Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP for the
Defendant. |
T v Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust [2009]
LTLPI 8.6.10
A 68 year old
female Claimant underwent hip replacement at Defendant Trust’s
hospital. Four months later she experienced pain in her hip
and was referred back for x-rays and was advised that pain was
due to fluid build up before being sent home.
Claimant
continued to experience pain over the next few months and was
subsequently unable to weight bear and five months later was
readmitted to hospital. Scan revealed MRSA. She informed staff
of weakness in her arm. After a week she lost all sensation in
arms and legs and was transferred to ICU. MRI revealed spinal
abscess causing cord compression.
Claimant underwent
operation to reduce pressure on spine but nonetheless was
rendered tetraplegic and incontinent. During aftercare she
developed gangrene in her left foot due to pressure sore. She
required 24 hour care.
Claimant alleged negligence in
failing to diagnose epidural collection earlier and carry out
operation to reduce pressure sooner. Liability disputed. Delay
in surgery of two days admitted however Defendant contended
that Claimant would have suffered a severe cord deficit in any
event.
Out of court settlement: £900,000 lump sum and
periodical payments of £176,000 pa (estimated General Damages:
£170,000).
Simon Taylor QC and William Latimer-Sayer
instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP for the Claimant. Philip
Havers QC instructed by Capsticks Solicitors LLP for the
Defendant. | |
| Legislation/Statute/Regulation |
HFEA sets fees for single embryo IVF
treatment
The Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) will redefine
the fee charged to clinics for IVF. From 1st October the
clinics will pay a single fee of £104.50 for the initial
treatment cycle using single embryo transfer. If the first
cycle is unsuccessful, each additional frozen embryo will not
be charged. Currently clinics are charged for each
cycle.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
13th May 2010.
| |
| News & Press |
Law firms could be hit by VAT charges for
medical reports
Changes by HM
Revenue and Customs to the treatment of medical reports for
VAT purposes could cause firms significant additional cost.
The changes have prompted the Law Society to make written
submissions in the forthcoming VAT tribunal case of
Barratt Goff & Tomlinson (BGT) v The Commissioners for
HMRC. The HMRC has required law firm BGT to account for
VAT on medical reports obtained for personal injury or
clinical negligence litigation on the basis that lawyers read
the reports and then provide a legal service. The hearing has
been listed for 1st December.
Law Society Gazette
10th June 2010.
|
New guidance on end of life care
launched
New GMC guidance,
which comes into effect on 1st July 2010, advises doctors to
pay more attention to wishes of dying patients, and where
possible, make advanced care plans for patients expected to
die within 12 months.
GMC 19th May
2010.
|
Hospitals to face financial penalties for
readmissions
NHS hospitals that discharge patients before they are fully
recovered could face financial penalties under new Government
proposals.
Independent 8th June 2010. |
Nurses challenge unfair vetting
The Royal College of Nursing is seeking
a Judicial Review of the vetting scheme launched in October
2009 on the grounds that it may breach the ECHR by denying
nurses a fair hearing or right to appeal. The scheme is
designed to prevent unsuitable people from working with
children and vulnerable adults. When fully operational all
nurses, midwifes, nursing students and healthcare assistants
will have to register with the Independent Safeguarding
Authority, which will have the power to strike professionals
off if found guilty of certain
offences.
Independent 9th June 2010.
|
Doctors’ fears force review of online medical
database
The Government has
announced a review of the national database following concerns
expressed by doctors that patients were not being properly
consulted and their medical notes were being added to the
database without consent.
Daily Telegraph 15th June
2010.
| | |
London 25
Fenchurch Avenue London EC3M 5AD Tel: 0207 667 9667 |
Kennedys worldwide
(including associated offices):
Auckland, Belfast,
Birmingham, Cambridge, Chelmsford, Dubai, Dublin, Hong Kong,
Karachi, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Maidstone, Manchester, Mumbai, New
Delhi, Paris, Santiago, Singapore, Sydney, Taunton and Warsaw. |
www.kennedys-law.com
Privacy
statement Disclaimer Copyright | |